Recent orders
Lindum Connection Road Project Existing Conditions Assessment
Lindum Connection Road Project:
5.2 Existing Conditions Assessment
5.2.1 Introduction
The LRO feasibility design is more or less concerned with making improvements on infrastructure provisions. The existing infrastructural facilities must therefore be appreciated and properly summarized. As Bowen, Kreuter and Fernandez (2010) and Tabish and Jha (2011) posit, this section is very crucial as it locates on plan to suitable scale and summarises the following existing infrastructure elements: Carriageways including channelization and line marking, layout of intersections, traffic control devises and signage, road hierarchy designation of all roads and streets, access to properties, car parking facilities, pedestrian facilities, cyclist/wheeled recreation device facilities, railway lines and stations, bus stops, and other transit infrastructure.
5.2.2 Summary of Existing Infrastructure Elements
The LRO project will affect the following existing roads sections: Lindum road, North road, Kianawah road, Tilley road, Mt. Cotton road, Grieve road, Rochedale road, Logan road, and Compton road (Bunker, 2013). The BCC road hierarchy classification perceives the LRO to be a major city distributor that provides connections between various communities and major centres within the Brisbane area (Brisbane City Council, 2008). Specifically, the B40 corridor connects major land uses within the Brisbane area, and has crucial public transport and freight transport functions.
The study area roadways can be characterised into the following traits. Frontage development types, posted speed limit and environmental capacity. The northern part of the Lindum road is light-med while the southern part of the road is light-med industrial drain. The road can allow speeds of up to 60 kilometres per hour. From an environmental capacity standpoint, the road can carry a nom. or 20,000 AADT. The western part of the North road is light industrial while the eastern part of the road is detached dwellings. This road can allow a speed of up to 60 kilometres per hour and a normal environmental capacity of 20,000 AADT. The northern part of Sibley road is local shops, railway station, while the southern part is local shops and detached dwellings. The road can allow speeds of up to 60 kilometres per hour and a normal environmental capacity of 20,000 AADT. On the other hand, the eastern part of Kianawah road is made up of detached dwellings while the western side is detached dwellings. Finally, and as Bunker (2013) shows, the road can allow speeds of up to 60 kilometres per hour and a normal 20,000 AADT environmental capacity.
Lindum road has a road reserve width of 20 metres, a cross section of 2 undivided lanes and channelization. Further, the road has a carriageway width of 7.5 to 12.0 metres, a normal lane width of 3.25 metres, an unmarked shoulder width, northern and southern flowing property accesses, and unmarked bicycle lanes. However, this road lacks footpaths. North road is much bigger than Lindum road in terms of size. This road (North road) has a 20 metres road reserve width, 2 undivided lanes, turn pocket, and channelization. In addition, this road has a 12.0 metres wide carriageway, a normal 6.0 metres wide lane, unmarked shoulders, eastern and western flowing property accesses, unmarked bicycle lanes, and concrete paved footpaths. On the other hand, Sibley road has 20 metres wide road reserve, 2 undivided lanes and channelization, 8.0 to 12.0 metres of carriageway, a normal 4.0 metres of normal lane, unmarked shoulders, northern and southern flowing property accesses, unmarked bicycle lanes and concrete paved footpaths. As Bunker (2013) shows, Kianawah road has a 20 metres of road reserve, 2 lanes and channelization cross section, 10.5 to 12.0 metres wide carriageway, normal 5.0 wide lanes, unmarked shoulders, eastern and western flowing property accesses, unmarked bicycle lanes, concrete paved footpaths.
The study area has public transport 223 and 224 bus routes. Route 223 is neighbours the 006193 Lindum Station and Sibley while route 224 neighbours 006194 Lindum Station and Sibley road (Brisbane City Council, 2009). Both routes are 2 minutes walking time, but route 223 has a clockwise loop orientation while route 224 has an anti-clockwise loop orientation. Both routes has their terminus at Wynnum Plaza, but route 223 takes between 39 to 55 minutes in travel time while route 224 takes between 35 to 55 minutes in travel time. During weekday peak frequency, it takes 45 minutes for route 223 and 40 minutes for 224, however, it takes the same amount of time (60 minutes) for both routes during off peak weekday frequency. The weekday hours of service are between 07:01 and 18:05 for route 223 and between 07:22 and 18:17 for route 224. Saturday’s frequency is 60 minutes for both routes while Saturday hours of service is between 08:51 and 16:54 for route 223 and between 08:27 and 16:29 for route 224. According to Bunker (2013), there is no Sunday frequency and Sunday hours of service for route 223 while the Sunday frequency for route 224 is 60 minutes and its Sunday hours of service is between 08:27 and 16:29.
The study area public transport Cleveland rail schedule is not as complex. During peak periods it takes about 35 minutes to travel by train to central station, while it takes 7.5 minutes during weekday frequency (Brisbane City Council, 2009). During off peak periods it takes about 34 minutes travel by train to central station, and between 30 and 20 minutes during weekday frequency. Weekday hours of service is between 05:18 and 00:20 (01:19F) while Saturday frequency is 30 minutes and Saturday hours of service is between 05:21 and 01:19. Lastly, Bunker (2013) shows that the study area Sunday frequency is either 60 minutes or 30 minutes and Sunday hours of service are between 06:51 and 23:19.
5.2.3 Conclusion
This section of the LRO feasibility design has captured the existing infrastructure facilities within the study area. It captures the various roads that will be affected by the project, that is, the Lindum road, North road, Kianawah road, Tilley road, Mt. Cotton road, Grieve road, Rochedale road, Logan road, and Compton road. These roads are further characterised into frontage development types, posted speed limit and environmental capacity. Specifically, the Lindum road, North road, Sibley road, and Kianawah road have an assortment of physical attributes including detached dwellings and industrial drains. These roads support public transport bus routes and public transport Cleveland rail routes which serves the study area throughout the clock.
References
Bowen, D.J., Kreuter, M., and Fernandez, M. (2010). How we design feasibility studies. Am. J. Prev. Med., 38(5): 452-457.
Brisbane City Council (2008). Wynnum West neighborhood plan. [Online], Available at: http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building/planning-guidelines-and-tools/city-plan-zones-codes/city-plan-2000-document/chapter-4-local-plans/ (Accessed September 08, 2013).
Brisbane City Council (2009). Wynnum-Manly West neighborhood plan. [Online], Available at: http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building/planning-guidelines-and-tools/city-plan-zones-codes/city-plan-2000-document/chapter-4-local-plans/ (Accessed September 08, 2013).
Bunker, J. (2013). ENB476 civil design project: Lindum rail overpass feasibility design study. Queensland University of Technology Press.
Tabish, S.Z.S. and Jha, K.N. (2011). Important factors for success of public construction projects. 11th International Conference on Construction and Project Management IPEDR, 15: 64-68.
Limited Partnership
Limited Partnership
Introduction
In limited partnership, limited partners have shares of ownership however, they do not take part to manage the partnership. They are neither liable for the amount which are greater than what they had invested in partnership. It contrasts to the general partners who play roles in daily operations of partnership, and are personally responsible for any liabilities of partnership. This paper therefore compares and contrasts the risks and benefits of being in a limited partnership in regards to corporate and partnership law.
In limited partnership, there tends to be some benefits or risks that a limited partner might face. One of the benefits of limited partnership for a limited partner is that, it is easier for the limited partnership to attract their investors since the capital that they invest in businesses is the liability for a limited partner. Limited partners on the other hand, benefits from the general partners by focusing the efforts they have in order for them to run the business. The limited partners also have the freedom to leave whenever they feel like, or they can be replaced with other people without the dissolving of the Limited partnership.
Other benefit of a limited partner is where, the partner benefits from simple operating structure. A partnership, as it is opposed to the corporation, seems to be simple to be established as well as, running it given that there are no forms which need to be filed or drafted. The partner only needs to file the certificate of partnership with the state office so as to register for the business name as well as, securing the license of that business. Because of that, annual filing corporation fees which are sometimes expensive are avoided when partnership is formed.
A limited partner also benefit in taxes advantage. In general partnership, there is flow of profit and loses from the business to the partners as compared to limited partnership, where taxes are levied on a limited partners’ income, though, a limited partner fails to experience the case, since they get to share the profits and losses as they participate in the business only (Stark, 2007).
A limited partner also benefits on liability limits in that, their liability for partnership’s debt is always limited to the money that individual partners contributes to partnership. This is different from the general partnership since any amount that is contributed usually becomes the asset of all the partners.
Another benefit of being in a limited partner is the benefit of flexibility. The decision can be easily made since the managers are the owners of the partnership when the business is small. It is different from the corporations where the shareholders, the directors, and the officers have some skilled knowledge of making decisions.
Conversely, there are some risks which a limited partner may indulge in when forming this kind of partnership. The limited partner may be risking in participating in limited partnership since they do not know whether there are chances of lack of making profit and whether there are clear guidelines that indicates who is doing what amongst the partners and how the business is to be conducted. The limited partner also risks given that there is no state regulations which are subjected to paperwork as compared to the general partnership (Goldstein, 2007).
The limited partner also risks on losing some benefits of limited partner status if they happen to take the active roles to conduct the activities of partnership, because of this, the general partners try to maintain the full personal risks. There is also a risk of a limited partner to just give out their capital contribution as it is provided in the agreement of partnership, however if the limited partners tends to participate in management of partnership business, the protected limited partner status may be lost and this makes it to become liable for all the risk (Haupt & Malange 2010).
Other risks include the risks of authority of partners. For example, when there is a contract and one partner happens to sign it, every other partner will fulfill it by bounding it legally. An example of this case is where by, one person who is in that partnership orders some computer equipments which are worth $ 5,000; it is as if his other partners placed the order too. However, if the business cannot afford to pay that bill, then the other members’ personal assets will be in line with the person who ordered for those computer equipments. This tends to be true even if the other partners are not aware of the contract (Goldstein, 2007).
References
Clarkson, K. W., Miller, R. L., & Cross, F. B. (2012). Business law: text and cases : legal, ethical, global, and corporate environment (12th ed.). London: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Goldstein, A. S. (2007). The limited partnership book. London: Garrett Pub..
Haupt, A., & Malange, N. J. (2010). Corporate law for commerce students: partnership, companies, and close corporations. London: Van Schaik Publishers.
Stark, K. J. (2007). Corporate and partnership income tax: code and regulations : selected sections (2007-2008 ed.). New York, N.Y.: Foundation Press.
Limited liability Company
Limited liability Company
Students Name:
Institution:
Date:
Limited Liability Company
Different from other business structures, a limited liability company has separate and
dissimilar legal rights and obligations. The most valuable thing about LLC is that its
members are not accounted for debt or liabilities of the company. Making it stand out from
the rest businesses structures LLC benefits is that it’s flexible, easy to change, and simple to
run. For instance, if the LLC owner separates his assets from the business, he should be
protected from the debts and liabilities. If the LLC is said to go bankrupt, the creditors can
only gather their debts from the assets of the business.
An S corporation is a business structure that has attractive tax benefits, and its
liabilities are protected with the corporation. S corporation is essential where businesses
are small and large as members may pay less on tax. S corporations are not entitled; hence
international revenue service manages taxation and prevents the company from double
taxation (Lux & Mclean 1998). Both business structures, the S corporation, and LLC are
obliged to taxation. Disparities occur in that an S corporation, taxes are lined down to
individuals while in LLC, the organization is taxed.
During business formation, it is essential to view taxation as it is considered as an
expense. From the case discussed above, it is crucial to forming an S corporation rather than an
LLC, as the taxes of the LLC, don’t favor individuals. Decision making may be critical, but
considering employee numbers and the business owner will help come to a decision
quickly.
The main advantage of both LLC and S corporation is that they offer limited liability
protection; hence it’s advisable to protect your assets by forming an LLC. With LLC being
flexible and easy to manage, many people are attracted to LLC (Koss, 2007). S corporation
has a vast advantage over LLC in that they can acquire funds from investors and other money
lending institutions.
Contrary S corporations’ members can receive dividends that, in return, lower their
tax billing. When it comes to management, LLC members are privileged to manage and run
the business compared to S corporation. It’s there essential when forming a business entity to
consider factors that affect the operations. One key element is taxation, such that how does
the tax affects both the business and the employee. Another factor is to consider your sources
of capital; they are your investments or from other investors. Management and ownership are
also keys in choosing the business structure you wish to approach based on your type of
business. With the ease of formation, it is better to go with a design that you are free
to establish.
References
Koss, A. M. (2007). Best practice guidance for angel groups–deal structure and
negotiation. Angel Capital Angel Educational Foundation,
http://www.angelcapitalassociation.org/data/Documents/Resources/AngelCapitalEducation/
ACEF_BEST_PRACTICES_Deal_Structuring. pdf.
Lux, M. S., & McLean, S. A. (1998). The IRS Clears the Air on S Corporation
Subsidiaries-Proposed Regulations under Code Sec. 1361 (b)(3). J. Passthrough Entities, 1,
29.